If Evolution was proven to be a fact 100% would there still be creatonists?

bgast1 · Apr 28, 2006

I am very short on time here, as I am running out to see if I can pick up a good book which shows both sides of the picture in an objective way.

Avida--I'll have to look into it, but nevertheless, the program had a creator. It didn't come from nothing.

Look here's the deal for me. I'm just a 54 year old guy, 55 in July who has done a lot of reading. I never finished college, and I am paying dearly for it now. (Regardless of what you believe, if you are young, a college student, dropped out of high school. Get back to school and get your education this is tough world to live in these days, and it's only going to get worse, you might save yourself a lot of heartache in the futher.) I was an athiest, if at best agnostic in my early 20's. I basically had no use for God. Thankfully someone was smart enough to crack through the insults, the debauchery and otherwise Godless life I was living and showed me that the evidence for believing in Jesus Christ existed. That indeed, He was God, lived a perfect life, was crucified, and rose again on the third day. I was in the Navy at the time and I had all the answers, at least I thought I did, the thing is I wasn't listening and I was unwilling to listen. The difference now is that I know my eternity is secure (of course it doesn't matter if you don't believe in God, but what if you are wrong, eternity in an unfathomable amount of time), if I don't know the answer to something, I can research it, If I still can't explain it, I can live with it. The theory of evoloution doesn't matter that much to me anyway, because if God created the Universe, He would have put a mechanism in for live to continue.

Sansabas--I am enjoying my conversation with you, if I don't get back in a reasonable amount of time, or get sidetracked feel free to PM me and I would be happy to continue. Same goes for any of you, unless you are going to call me names. :-)

Oh, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that some people had suitable rebuttals to Dawkins.

CartesianFart · Apr 28, 2006

If Evolution was proven to be a fact 100% would there still be creatonists?

Evolution is a sound theory today in mostly biology,but it is still a theory that can be overturned by another theory.Same goes to creationism as well.It is only ascribable to person wants and needs to constitute on how the world works.

Samson · Apr 28, 2006

bgast1 said:
I'll think about it. (not quitting on the thread that is.) But my point is, in absence of proof, I feel that the evidence points to something other than a scientific explanation.

I THINK this is a non-sequitur. If all the evidence points to something, then that is by definition a scientific explanation.

Bluemofia · Apr 28, 2006

bgast1 said:
Avida--I'll have to look into it, but nevertheless, the program had a creator. It didn't come from nothing.

Ah, but it works on the principles of TOE and natural selection. It is simply used to support evolution, not disprove God.

The programs are programed out knowing how to do only two things: Replicate, and make errors occasionally when replicating.

That is perfectly applicable to TOE, and they used it to prove that irreversably complex things exist, and do evolve, effectivly disproving the irreducibly complexity arguement. (In 27 out of 50 trials, they evolved programs that can do a certain function that I forgot that is 1 in 1 trillion chance of comming togeather naturally, and they did it in 10,000 generations.)

El_Machinae · Apr 28, 2006

http://www.well.com/~hernan/biomorphs/biomorphs.html is a really simple version with little explanation

That's a good one, it shows what I'm saying. That by using pre-set rules, and natural selection, the creature can become complex and amazing.

Sanabas, I'm sorry that I was wrong about who posted the link. I'm somewhat embarrased.

PS: I thought consensus was that Dawkins was a jerk? He might be easy or .hard to refute, I don't know, because he'll be ignored for being a jerk

sanabas · Apr 28, 2006

bgast1 said:
I am very short on time here, as I am running out to see if I can pick up a good book which shows both sides of the picture in an objective way.

"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, is a very, very good book to read, regardless of what you believe. If you find stuff in it hard to swallow, ask about it here, and I'm sure there'll be a few of us who can elaborate on stuff.

Avida--I'll have to look into it, but nevertheless, the program had a creator. It didn't come from nothing.

My edit is on the end of the last page, so I'll post the links here again. The biomorph programs here, and the examples Dawkins uses in his book, aren't meant to be examples of evolution as it happens in nature. It actually states that quite clearly in the book from memory. They are demonstrations of the power of cumulative selection, that if something replicates itself almost perfectly, with very slight changes, over a number of generations that can result in very big changes. It's a demonstration of how you can arrive at very complex stuff from a very simple beginning.

http://www.rennard.org/alife/english/biomintrgb.html has lots of stuff.
http://www.webalice.it/anna.nardella/biomorph.html also has links to other similar programs (like Langton's ant, etc)
http://www.well.com/~hernan/biomorphs/biomorphs.html is a really simple version with little explanation

if I don't know the answer to something, I can research it, If I still can't explain it, I can live with it.

Sounds like a reasonable attitude to have.

The theory of evoloution doesn't matter that much to me anyway, because if God created the Universe, He would have put a mechanism in for live to continue.

Is that not getting very close to the 'god of the gaps'? It seems tenable, provided you're allowed to rework your interpretations of the bible and other scripture as the gaps get filled in. The problem I see with it is that if you do decide on an interpretation that must be inerrant, you can run into a lot of trouble when new evidence is discovered. Like I said before, if you get evidence that contradicts what you know to be correct, you only have two options. One is that the evidence is wrong, or that you ignore it as being wrong, the second is that what you knew wasn't actually correct. That second option seems to lead to problems, moreso in the situation you've described, when your entire faith is based on the bible being the word of god, and therefore inerrant.

Sansabas--I am enjoying my conversation with you, if I don't get back in a reasonable amount of time, or get sidetracked feel free to PM me and I would be happy to continue. Same goes for any of you, unless you are going to call me names.

Same deal for me. Hope to see the posts about civ soon too.

Oh, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that some people had suitable rebuttals to Dawkins.

I have read a site which contains quite a lot of long rebuttals to Dawkins. I will see if I can find it. From memory, a lot of the rebuttals hinged on misunderstanding, perhaps deliberately misunderstanding, what Dawkins had to say. Seemed to me that a decent grasp of high-school biology would be enough to refute the majority of what was said there. Like I said above, I strongly suggest reading the Blind Watchmaker yourself, and asking questions about it here. If you can find me a book clearly explaining some of the evidence in favour of creationism, I will happily read it and ask questions about it as well.

sanabas · Apr 28, 2006

El_Machinae said:
That's a good one, it shows what I'm saying. That by using pre-set rules, and natural selection, the creature can become complex and amazing.

Sanabas, I'm sorry that I was wrong about who posted the link. I'm somewhat embarrased.

All good. I'll just find a post to edit so I look prescient, and your memory looks good.

Or we can just play with the pretty biomorphs until we forget where we first found them. The ants link from that first link seems a lot of fun to play with too.

PS: I thought consensus was that Dawkins was a jerk? He might be easy or .hard to refute, I don't know, because he'll be ignored for being a jerk

Never met the guy, so no idea. Regardless of his personality, he writes very clearly, and his personality doesn't affect the theories he's writing about.

*edit* I just did a bit of searching on a different forum. I found a thread about one site on evolution, refuting Dawkins, etc. It is at http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism.htm There are plenty of other pages around that site, one specifically about biomorphs at http://www.alternativescience.com/biomorphs-and-richard-dawkins.htm The consensus in that thread from those who have seen him on TV is that Dawkins comes across as an arrogant jerk. I've only read his stuff, not seen him on the teev, so I wouldn't know. The thread started off as someone posting the link to that site, because they'd found it in their research while trying to learn more about evolution, god, fitting them together, etc. I can c&p the long reply I wrote in that forum if bgast or anyone else wants to read it.*/edit*

King Flevance · Apr 28, 2006

Taliesin said:
Erm... we are Christian, you know. The point of having a church authority is to conserve the meaning of the Bible and to carefully keep its interpretation in harmony with advances in reason and science, and with changes in social context. That way, you don't have nuts hanging theories on poor translations, or inventing weird ideas about God that survive because there are no checks to restrain them. Jesus founded the Church to guide souls.

I understand Catholics are Christian, I was simply pointing out that mentioning the pope really doesnt hit all Christians just a branch or two. I mean the pope gets my respect in the same manner a reverend or priest does. But thats what he is. Nowhere in the bible does it mention the need for a pope. Again, the pope dedicates his life in the service of the lord and the people but I dont think he gets any extra guidance from the lord that another servant gets.

The church is nothing more than your relationship with God and Jesus. Usually communities of people also that work together to get closer relationships with Him. The Roman Catholic Church is a state thing. I don't knock it because I see them as on the right path, just not mine.

Warpus, I see what your saying. The bible as I interpret it has many literal parts and many metaphorical parts. Some parts in the literal sense describe events that took place that might seem metaphorical but the action discribed was symbolic. Like the fight between God and Jacob. I would say the bible is meant to be "interpretted and understood". Just because an author today uses a metaphor in the book does mean the whole thing is metaphorical and should be read accordingly. I think some of Genesis is literal, and some is metaphorical. I too agree the point is to show you that God created the world and put people here to rule over it. He tells us of sin that stains our souls and that we can not redeem ourselves. He tells us of his original promise to Abraham. And so on. Some parts are very literal. Some are symbolic. Think of the creation of earth as the "short-short" version. He skipped ahead to get to whats important.

Sorry, to not reply for a while, I went to bed shortly after that post.

El_Machinae · Apr 28, 2006

Nowhere in the bible does it mention the need for a pope.

"Peter, your name is Peter (rock), and upon your name I will build a church"

Or something like that.

Eran of Arcadia · Apr 28, 2006

El_Machinae said:
"Peter, your name is Peter (rock), and upon your name I will build a church"

Or something like that.

It's more like, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock (Peter in Greek, but Jesus was speaking in Aramaic) I will build my church". That doesn't mean that the pope is the true sucessor of Peter, anyways, just that inasmuch as Jesus founded a church, it was based around Peter as the cornerstone. (In Mormonism we tend to use a lot of building analogies to describe the church.)

El_Machinae · Apr 28, 2006

To be honest, I don't really get that passage. I also don't know how they know who Peter chose to be the next Pope. I don't argue with the Catholics on the basis of their religion, just the semantics (because of my whole cloning thing)

Sidhe · Apr 28, 2006

I've seen alot of translations directly from Aramaic you would be surprised at how rich the translation is and how much more of a message is inherent in it. It's the same basic message of the King James Bible or whatever but it's so much more. Aramaic is very expressive in that meaning is conveyed in a more inflective sense, much like Arabic is. For me personally the lords prayer in Aramaic and some of the gospel text is just so much more rich, I really hope that translations form Aramaic are in the stores soon, they make the message more - ah I can't think of a word - profound I supose and more philosophical, in fact oddly less open to interpritation.

And Jesus answered: "Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life

I like this one particularly from the Aramaic.

Inqvisitor · Apr 28, 2006

Masquerouge said:
The official position of the Catholic church is that while the Bible is inerrant, its interpretation is not, and we do is interpret it.

Tell me... You're not an ardent supporter of Vatican 2, are you ?

We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect Our predecessor's injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest - things concerning "profane knowledge," the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author's greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!

Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what Our predecessor laid down since - so they claim - he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external - and thus deceptive - appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things - of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks - we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture.

Moreover, Our predecessor, sweeping aside all such distinctions between what these critics are pleased to call primary and secondary elements, says in no ambiguous fashion that "those who fancy that when it is a question of the truth of certain expressions we have not got to consider so much what God said as why He said it," are very far indeed from the truth. He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text: "It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred."
--Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus

El_Machinae · Apr 28, 2006

He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text: "It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred."

Is the important part, for those too lazy to read the whole thing.

Sidhe · Apr 28, 2006

I'm sticking with Jesus: scripture is lifeless, did you even read my post :lol:

All this sophistry and BS over scripture is hilarious: let's ignore Jesus, cause the written word and adhering to it is what religion is all about, not life not breath, not humanity not fishes, not the spirit not the inherent wisdom in the living, just dead worthless paper. :rolleyes:

You're all nuts :crazyeye:

Sorry but this isn't what religion is about, the sooner you learn that the better IMHO.

bgast1 · Apr 28, 2006

Sansabas--I tried to read a book by Stephen Hawking once. I forgot the title, but it was kind of over my head, so I gave up on it. When I have an opportunity, I will see what I can do about picking up The Blind Watchmaker.

As far as books that I read, I usually only pick up books on Apologetics, and then only from certain authors.

sanabas · Apr 29, 2006

bgast1 said:
Sansabas--I tried to read a book by Stephen Hawking once. I forgot the title, but it was kind of over my head, so I gave up on it. When I have an opportunity, I will see what I can do about picking up The Blind Watchmaker.

A brief history of time? I've read it, but wasn't a big fan of it. I think Dawkins explains things much more clearly, and the underlying concepts aren't as tough to grasp either.

As far as books that I read, I usually only pick up books on Apologetics, and then only from certain authors.

Any you'd recommend?

bgast1 · Apr 29, 2006

Sansabas--Go to my thread to Athiests and Agnostics and answer my question there. I have a reason for asking. I am going to sum it all up, and then you will have the answer to your question. I will send you a PM

diablodelmar · May 2, 2006

Erik Mesoy said:
I'll offer $2,500,000 to anyone who can prove evolution scientifically wrong.

Please do it! Go to Kent Hovind and you debate with him!

You're making a poor bluff.

diablodelmar · May 2, 2006

The Last Conformist said:
What on earth would it mean to "live [one's] life according to Evolution"?

Evolutionary biology is a natural science, not a code of morality or a guide to a successful life.

@diablodelmar: You're refering to Kent "Hoodwinked" Hovind. If you took the care to actually read the conditions of his offer, he demands far more than a scientific demonstration of evolution.

I have read the whole offer, and it demands proof for all evolution, not just micro-evolution which is the only one that has been observed.

If Evolution was proven to be a fact 100% would there still be creatonists?

Prince

Deity

Deity

F=ma

Colour vision since 2018

Psycho Bunny

Psycho Bunny

Deity

Colour vision since 2018

Stormin' Mormon

Colour vision since 2018

Deity

King

Colour vision since 2018

Deity

Prince

Psycho Bunny

Prince

no comment

no comment

Similar threads